Jump Kick -
Too many pages to sift through - can someone post the evidence that was used to conclude that the girl was forcibly raped vs. consensual? Did any of the convicts admit they forcibly raped her?

Holly Smith was a physician at Riverside Regional Medical Center in the early morning of Oct. 10, 1989, when the 17-year-old was brought in by a police detective for examination. Smith testified Friday that the exam was hampered because the woman suffered from vaginal spasms.

The doctor said the disorder virtually always is the result of rape, rather than consensual sexual intercourse, and that the condition can last for years. Often, she said, women explain that they cannot have intercourse after they have been raped because they get scared and begin to experience the spasms.

``It is very common after rape,'' said Smith. ``It is not common otherwise.''

Thanks.

What was the deal with Lloyd and the other guy? Why was one convicted and other not? Other than limp dick obviously.

"Irvin walked free, not because he did the right thing and refused to have sex with a 17-year-old. He testified that he wanted to have intercourse with her but couldn't.

Gatling's rape charge stemmed from an accusation that he held the girl down while Irvin had intercourse with her. Since the jury believed Irvin didn't have intercourse, Gatling couldn't have helped him. So Gatling could be convicted only of forcing the 17-year-old to perform oral sex.

For those of you trying to get this information out to the general public on Lloyd Irvin's history with attempted rape, I would suggest working on getting proof that the Lloyd Irvin in the case in 1990 at Hampton University is the same one as the BJJ instructor and getting his Wikipedia page updated. Right now, his Wikipedia page is locked from being updated due to Wikipedia policies on Biographies of Living Persons (BLPs). If you look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lloyd_Irvin page, it describes the concerns holding up adding the information on the rape case to Lloyd Irvin's Wikipedia page. Unless those concerns are addressed, the information on Llyod's participation in the gang rape of a 17 year old little girl will never be added to his Wikipedia page.

For some perspective, if "lloyd irvin" or "lloyd irvin bjj" is googled, the link to his Wikipedia page comes up in the top 3 matches and will continue to do so after most of the current outrage dies down (no matter what everyone thinks today, this will blow over at some point for most people over time). Once the current news stories move off of the front page, the only matches on the first page of a google search will be information that is put out by Llyod and his Wikipedia page. 1-2 years from now, I think it will still be important that people that are searching for a place to train BJJ and search on Llyod Irvin still have full access to information on his willing participation of a brutal rape.

There are currently three items that will need to be specifically addressed before the information on the rape can be added to the Llyod Irvin Wikipedia page. From the Talk page:

"I'll outline and summarize the main issues as I see them:

* Only one source to substantiate allegations

There only seems to be one original source (http://articles.dailypress.com/) that mentions the case. I get the reason for the limited coverage at the time but, as established, it should not be allowed to stand as the sole source for such defaming allegations. The source itself seems fairly authoritative, though I think it’s odd that they reference Irvin in the actual URL links when he wasn’t even the man convicted. Regardless, even if the original court/police records are destroyed certainly someone from the time should be able to give an interview or something; there must be other sources somewhere.

* Questions regarding which 'Lloyd E. Irvin' is referenced

I’ll admit that it does look indeed probable that this Lloyd Irvin is the same ‘Lloyd E. Irvin’ in the article (a simple White Pages/person locator search reveals only three publicly listed Lloyd E. Irvins) but a number of the articles detailing the case are careful to make clear they aren’t sure the Dailypress article is actually referencing the martial arts instructor, which I find troubling.

* As a somewhat polarizing figure he does have a camp of passionate detractors

This last factor is what makes me a bit more suspicious about this case than a good many other bios. As a west-coaster, I have no real idea why this is other than to assume that if Irvin’s market share were a lot smaller it would help out competitors in the mid-atlantic states and/or a lot of people dislike his annoying/aggressive marketing. Whatever the reason, it leads to pages like this which I assume are fueled by something other than the moral outrage which might stem from a crime alleged 23 years ago that a jury found he didn’t even commit...Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)"

For those of you trying to get this information out to the general public on Lloyd Irvin's history with attempted rape, I would suggest working on getting proof that the Lloyd Irvin in the case in 1990 at Hampton University is the same one as the BJJ instructor and getting his Wikipedia page updated. Right now, his Wikipedia page is locked from being updated due to Wikipedia policies on Biographies of Living Persons (BLPs). If you look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lloyd_Irvin page, it describes the concerns holding up adding the information on the rape case to Lloyd Irvin's Wikipedia page. Unless those concerns are addressed, the information on Llyod's participation in the gang rape of a 17 year old little girl will never be added to his Wikipedia page.

For some perspective, if "lloyd irvin" or "lloyd irvin bjj" is googled, the link to his Wikipedia page comes up in the top 3 matches and will continue to do so after most of the current outrage dies down (no matter what everyone thinks today, this will blow over at some point for most people over time). Once the current news stories move off of the front page, the only matches on the first page of a google search will be information that is put out by Llyod and his Wikipedia page. 1-2 years from now, I think it will still be important that people that are searching for a place to train BJJ and search on Llyod Irvin still have full access to information on his willing participation of a brutal rape.

There are currently three items that will need to be specifically addressed before the information on the rape can be added to the Llyod Irvin Wikipedia page. From the Talk page:

"I'll outline and summarize the main issues as I see them:

* Only one source to substantiate allegations

There only seems to be one original source (http://articles.dailypress.com/) that mentions the case. I get the reason for the limited coverage at the time but, as established, it should not be allowed to stand as the sole source for such defaming allegations. The source itself seems fairly authoritative, though I think it’s odd that they reference Irvin in the actual URL links when he wasn’t even the man convicted. Regardless, even if the original court/police records are destroyed certainly someone from the time should be able to give an interview or something; there must be other sources somewhere.

* Questions regarding which 'Lloyd E. Irvin' is referenced

I’ll admit that it does look indeed probable that this Lloyd Irvin is the same ‘Lloyd E. Irvin’ in the article (a simple White Pages/person locator search reveals only three publicly listed Lloyd E. Irvins) but a number of the articles detailing the case are careful to make clear they aren’t sure the Dailypress article is actually referencing the martial arts instructor, which I find troubling.

* As a somewhat polarizing figure he does have a camp of passionate detractors

This last factor is what makes me a bit more suspicious about this case than a good many other bios. As a west-coaster, I have no real idea why this is other than to assume that if Irvin’s market share were a lot smaller it would help out competitors in the mid-atlantic states and/or a lot of people dislike his annoying/aggressive marketing. Whatever the reason, it leads to pages like this which I assume are fueled by something other than the moral outrage which might stem from a crime alleged 23 years ago that a jury found he didn’t even commit...Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)"

I don't know about you but if the internet was filled with gossip about me raping somebody in 1989 and people where making comments on my FB and forums and the such.

I would at the very least answer one person and tell them thet is the wrong guy. SEO attemps and post deletions would be on my list of things to do but even higher on my list would be getting the word out there that it WAS NOT ME?

Make sense? This is what all of us here speculating are not understanding.

For those of you trying to get this information out to the general public on Lloyd Irvin's history with attempted rape, I would suggest working on getting proof that the Lloyd Irvin in the case in 1990 at Hampton University is the same one as the BJJ instructor and getting his Wikipedia page updated. Right now, his Wikipedia page is locked from being updated due to Wikipedia policies on Biographies of Living Persons (BLPs). If you look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lloyd_Irvin page, it describes the concerns holding up adding the information on the rape case to Lloyd Irvin's Wikipedia page. Unless those concerns are addressed, the information on Llyod's participation in the gang rape of a 17 year old little girl will never be added to his Wikipedia page.

For some perspective, if "lloyd irvin" or "lloyd irvin bjj" is googled, the link to his Wikipedia page comes up in the top 3 matches and will continue to do so after most of the current outrage dies down (no matter what everyone thinks today, this will blow over at some point for most people over time). Once the current news stories move off of the front page, the only matches on the first page of a google search will be information that is put out by Llyod and his Wikipedia page. 1-2 years from now, I think it will still be important that people that are searching for a place to train BJJ and search on Llyod Irvin still have full access to information on his willing participation of a brutal rape.

There are currently three items that will need to be specifically addressed before the information on the rape can be added to the Llyod Irvin Wikipedia page. From the Talk page:

"I'll outline and summarize the main issues as I see them:

* Only one source to substantiate allegations

There only seems to be one original source (http://articles.dailypress.com/) that mentions the case. I get the reason for the limited coverage at the time but, as established, it should not be allowed to stand as the sole source for such defaming allegations. The source itself seems fairly authoritative, though I think it’s odd that they reference Irvin in the actual URL links when he wasn’t even the man convicted. Regardless, even if the original court/police records are destroyed certainly someone from the time should be able to give an interview or something; there must be other sources somewhere.

* Questions regarding which 'Lloyd E. Irvin' is referenced

I’ll admit that it does look indeed probable that this Lloyd Irvin is the same ‘Lloyd E. Irvin’ in the article (a simple White Pages/person locator search reveals only three publicly listed Lloyd E. Irvins) but a number of the articles detailing the case are careful to make clear they aren’t sure the Dailypress article is actually referencing the martial arts instructor, which I find troubling.

* As a somewhat polarizing figure he does have a camp of passionate detractors

This last factor is what makes me a bit more suspicious about this case than a good many other bios. As a west-coaster, I have no real idea why this is other than to assume that if Irvin’s market share were a lot smaller it would help out competitors in the mid-atlantic states and/or a lot of people dislike his annoying/aggressive marketing. Whatever the reason, it leads to pages like this which I assume are fueled by something other than the moral outrage which might stem from a crime alleged 23 years ago that a jury found he didn’t even commit...Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)"

I don't know about you but if the internet was filled with gossip about me raping somebody in 1989 and people where making comments on my FB and forums and the such.

I would at the very least answer one person and tell them thet is the wrong guy. SEO attemps and post deletions would be on my list of things to do but even higher on my list would be getting the word out there that it WAS NOT ME?

Make sense? This is what all of us here speculating are not understanding.

I agree 100%. What I am saying though is the speculation by everyone and lack of response by Lloyd is not enough for Wikipedia to change their stance on having the information on the rape Llyod allegedly
participated in added to his biography page. Things like contacting the reporters that wrote the stories to get further information, gathering other corroborating sources, finding a way to definitively link the Lloyd in the rape case to the BJJ Lloyd will be the only way to get that information posted.

What I am saying is there is a lot of energy being spent ranting on MMA Internet forums (a very good start) but if people want to make a lasting impression, some of that energy needs to be focused in other non-MMA/BJJ directions. Unless a source like Wikipedia is updated, in a year or so, this story will only be known by people that are already in the MMA/BJJ community. When a family tries to research signing their kid up to start training, the first matches will all be information from Lloyd himself due to SEO and all of the other sources talking about the rape will be on pages 5+ of google search results. The single unbiased source that will always come in at the top of a search is Wikipedia.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Lloyd in the rape case and the BJJ instructor Lloyd are the same people and he participated in a gang rape 20 years ago. I also believe he got away with it due to a legal loophole. I believe he never paid for a brutal crime he committed against a minor and he is now looking to profit from the fears people have about people like him. With that said, unless sources outside of the MMA/BJJ community have this information and present it, he will continue to get away with it forever. He may take a short term hit with some affiliates leaving and he may lose some current students but long term he will be fine unless this becomes bigger than the current MMA/BJJ community.j

Wow, this is like watching the /b/ detectives get to work. Well done, but probably not fully conclusive yet.

Regardless, the way this whole thing has been handled by TLI since New Year's day has convinced me that something is seriously wrong with that camp. I have little doubt it's the same Lloyd because he would have said otherwise, but maybe it's for some SEO reason I haven't thought of.

Either way, he produces fucking scumbags for minions. Of that I have no doubt.

AFAIK, the transcipts are no longer available. The girl had been punched in the face, and was experiencing vaginal spasms. A doctor testified they are almost exclusively the result of forcible sex, and almost never the result of consenual sex, no matter how 'rough'.

And TLI (Too Limp Irvin) was found not guilty, because of the reasonable doubt introduced by the testimony that she was being forcibly orally sodomized by TLI's friend while "Master" Irvin 'tried' to rape her. Because there was more than one person in the room while TLI attempted rape, the jury bought the defense argument that it could have been someone else who jumped in and began forcibly raping the victim. TLI is far removed from 'innocent'.

My belief is that Lloyd was the only one who didn't claim consensual sex in their statement to the police, and the lawyer propositioned the TLI-defense.

But it was reported that at the outset of the trial, the defense didn't deny that any of the accused had sex with her.

It's possible the report was wrong (Irvin might have denied having sex with her from the beginning, as you say); but if the report was RIGHT, then Lloyd DID admit to having sex with her at the trial's outset, just like everyone else did.

If that is true, then Lloyd denied having sex with her, though only when it became feasible to do so.

As I've pointed out, everyone that admitted to having sex with her was busted, and one of them pled guilty to rape. Lloyd and his attorney surely realized that admitting to sex allowed the rape interpretation---so once everyone admissions were locked in, Lloyd (or his attorney) realized that he could change his story with little risk, since although physical evidence pointed to rape, it did not say who did what.

But it's easy to see that only ONE person on the defense could have played the "I didn't have sex with her at all card". Since they were all in the same boat at the beginning, they all agreed to stay on the same page about having sex with her. They surely agreed to that, because mass denial would have resulted in either NONE or ALL being convicted---but since medical evidence was consistent with rape, the defense concluded that mass-denial would have substantially upped the risk that everyone would be convicted. So mass non-denial was the card they all initially agreed to play.

So Lloyd played along with that until he (or his lawyer, or both) realized they could profitably change Lloyd's story, since the others were committed to their admissions. Now, that gamble would LOSE, but only IF some others in the defense also changed their stories too. But Lloyd and his lawyer were certain they WOULDN'T do that, since the others were committed to the "if we all admit to having sex with her, it'll look consensual" card.

There was only one hurdle to get over, and that was a plausible explanation as to why Lloyd didn't have sex with her. Merely saying he didn't WANT TO wouldn't have worked, because the jury would have wondered why; because if not having sex with her was a DECISION, then that would mean Lloyd had a sense that what was happening was wrong (and thus possible rape). It was therefore implausible for Lloyd to claim that:

1) He was in the room, but had a moral problem with what was happening

or

2) He was in the room, DIDN'T have a problem with what was going on, but just wasn't interested in sex

or

3) Wasn't in the room at all.

Clearly none of those would have worked. So what he had to do was admit he was in the room, but come up with a plausible explanation as to why he didn't have sex with her.

(And testimony, from the girl and others, MUST have placed him in the room, otherwise he wouldn't have been charged. So Lloyd admitted to that, because denying it would have been VERY problematic).

But non-interest in sex wasn't a plausible reason for not having sex with her, because he was present in the room, and everyone's presence in the room (by their admission) was for one purpose.

So Lloyd could not have claimed that he was in the room without admitting, by default, why he was there. So he admitted to being there and why. But he had to make his sex-denial plausible. There was therefore only one playable move, the limp-dick claim.

It was playable only by one person, and had to be played at the right time. Of course, Lloyd needed to be persuasive in his story, but we all know that would not have been a problem.

What I'm saying is this: it was reported initially that none of the accused denied having sex with her, and that contradicts your claim about "their statement to the police" (I'll find the quote about the unified non-denial if you like, but it's in one of my prior posts on this thread, back where my FRAT tornado is). And I take that report to be accurate, though it may not be.

Only in a LATER report was it stated that Lloyd denied having sex with her. If it is both true that no one denied it at the outset, but Lloyd did later, then obviously Lloyd changed his story down the road, after initially admitting to having sex with her.

The question thereby becomes, how did he make that convenient change in his story plausible? My guess is, he claimed it was too embarrassing for him to admit he didn't have sex with her from the outset, and said that he lied about having sex with her initially! But the odds were always on his side, so long as he was the only denier.

Of course this is all conjecture (but hardly of the free-wheeling sort). But anybody who doesn't buy my version FIRST has to say why the defense initially said that everyone admitted to having sex with her, if in fact Lloyd was never on that page. Because either the article which reported that was wrong (making Lloyd a denier from the outset), or it was right and Lloyd changed his story.

What I've tried to do in this thread is characterize Lloyd's defense as a change in story, but one effective only through perfect timing and successful prediction that no one else would change THEIR story.

One thing that I don't think is getting through is how unlikely it is that Lloyd actually had erectile dysfunction. The moral scorn seems directed at a picture in which Lloyd really is standing there with a limp dick.

The thing is, the girl testified that he DID rape her. She was certain that both Gatling and Lloyd had sex with her; Gatling orally sodomizing, Lloyd penetrating at the other end. Those she WASN'T certain about, were ultimately not charged or were let go before there was a trial.

But the thing is, her testimony alone was not likely sufficient to convict any person in particular. Those who got nailed for rape/sodomy got nailed simply because they *corroborated her story* at least insofar as admitting sex. Their admitting to such allowed a rape interpretation of what they did.

So since Lloyd (eventually, though not at first, IMO) denied having sex with her at all, the jury could not convict him unless there was no reasonable doubt. There WAS reasonable doubt, but ONLY because Lloyd was the sole denier who made his denial at the RIGHT TIME (after everyone else committed to their stories).

Of course he had to be persuasive about being limp, but this would be the least of all his challenges. He doesn't have to dazzle the jury, but merely give a plausible reason for why he didn't have sex, one that doesn't involve moral problems.

You guys are having a witch hunt. The dude was only 17 and very stupid. That's about the age when most people are not yet sexually and mentally mature, I'm sure he's done a lot of growing up since then. I'm sure everyone has done things which they regret in life. He probably is married and has daughters now so he knows his mistakes.

But regardless he was acquitted in court and therefore innocent in the eyes of the law.

It's getting kind of frustrating how people are still defending Lloyd with incorrect facts and falsehoods about the criminal justice system.

The victim was 17, Lloyd was 20. Lloyd is married and has one child, a son.

Also, being acquitted is being found 'not guilty' by a jury (or judge) of your peers. The instructions given to a jury by the judge are pretty clear that 'not guilty' is nowhere near the same thing as 'innocent'.

By all means keep up the accusations of a witch hunt or hating going on...

nightz - You guys are having a witch hunt. The dude was only 17 and very stupid. That's about the age when most people are not yet sexually and mentally mature, I'm sure he's done a lot of growing up since then. I'm sure everyone has done things which they regret in life. He probably is married and has daughters now so he knows his mistakes.

But regardless he was acquitted in court and therefore innocent in the eyes of the law.

nightz - You guys are having a witch hunt. The dude was only 17 and very stupid. That's about the age when most people are not yet sexually and mentally mature, I'm sure he's done a lot of growing up since then. I'm sure everyone has done things which they regret in life. He probably is married and has daughters now so he knows his mistakes.

But regardless he was acquitted in court and therefore innocent in the eyes of the law.

Billytk - I still don't understand why this is coming up 20 years later. Especially if there are no new charges and he was acquitted originally, if he's guilty he should have been skinned alive and hung at the time but he wasn't and now it's been 2 decades with no new evidence. Maybe I just can't crucify him the way I would normally because it's that douche Koppenhaver that's bringing it up

Maybe because his students were just arrested for raping one of the female students at his academy?? I know you are probably mentally challenged or a rapist, but it is pretty obvious why.

"Gatling and Irvin do not deny having sex with the woman, attorney Ron Smith told the six men and six women jurors at the outset of the trial, but he claimed the rape charges "are attempts to preserve her reputation."

Reply Post

“This is the official website of the Mixed Martial Arts llc. Commercial
reproduction, distribution or transmission of any part or parts of this website
or any information contained therein by any means whatsoever without the prior
written permission is not permitted.”